anonemouse

I think you have to look at what's accepted by the mainstream establishment, to be honest. Are those Creation scientists picking and choosing what their evidence is? Are they using mainstream definitions for that evidence or are they twisting the definition out of mainstream use? The fact is, many creation scientists have degrees in religion or theology, not true science. And many of the ones that DO have science degrees don't have degrees in biology or evolutionary ecology. And honestly? A physicist telling me, "Oh, biologists are wrong, wrong, wrong!" doesn't hold a lot of water, IMO. A tiny, teensy-weensy number of scientists (biologists) are creationists, when compared to the number of biologists that believe in evolution. And what are they basing their belief on? Their personal religious beliefs or actual evidence?

All scientific experiments can, in theory, be disproven. But again, get that million-year experiment funded, and our descendents will be able to make the determination. Right now, from the evidence that we have, it's a very valid scientific theory. It's not like we, as scientists, are holding up a single organism and saying, "HERE, HERE is the evidence for evolution!" There's LOTS of fossil evidence out there, if people are willing to open their eyes and look and use scientific definitions for scientific terms.

Hey, fund a million-year study and we'll see the results in a million years. The fact is, current evidence points to the accuracy of the theory. If at some time, a million-year study takes place, and the theory is proven wrong, it's no skin off my back. That's science. But right now, the evidence that we have indicates that the theory is correct. I'm all for someone attempting to disprove it, but shouldn't that be done to the standards of science, not the standards of creationism? And in science, you need to follow science's interpretations and definitions used by that science, not the interpretations and definitions used by creationists.

Oh yeah, I'm not meaning that in a hateful way or trying to make you think someone's beliefs aren't important. But the fact is, scientists should be the only people defining scientific theories and words, not lay-people, just like in other fields. For example, when you are talking about a fishery, a lake and a reservoir are very similar concepts, but have very different definitions. A lay-person may call both a "lake" and may define them the same way if asked, but that doesn't mean that a "lake" and a "reservoir" are the same thing, when you get right down to it.

Yes, it is. But you can't expect scientists to repeat a million-year process in a month or even a year, can you? I'm sure if we could do a million-year experiment, we could repeat it. The fact is, we don't have the time. Fund a million-year experiment, and I'm sure it would be proven.

Bumpity-bump.

Well, science says that those are transitional forms. And really, when it comes to science, who's better qualified to to say whether or not something fits a scientific definition, scientists or people that have a vested interest in not believing it? Of course they haven't shown transition in a laboratory. Transition takes thousands, millions of years. It doesn't happen overnight.

Exactly. Everyone does it. I know that when I'm around people in my home town, my Southern accent comes out. When I'm giving a presentation to the faculty and grad students of my university, though, I refine the way I talk. It's automatic, to a certain extent.

Essentially, yes. Think about it: Do believers in God let Atheists define words in their scriptures? Do engineers let chefs define words in common engineering usage? Do computer programmers let beauticians define their language? No, they don't.

From TalkOrigins Archive: Exploring the Creation/Evolution Controversy Science considers those to be transitional forms. Whether creationists do or not is irrelevant.

Ditto all of that. Great post, Wheetsin!

Hee! You made me snort! :clap2:

Yep, I've got that, too! I've bought enough stuff lately that it's coming in handy.

Definitely!

I think you'll find that the band makes things infinitely easier when it comes to bread. It's really uncomfortable for a lot of bandsters to eat it, so most don't. I can eat a small amount occasionally, when I'm really, really wanting some (like at Red Lobster or restaurants that have really good yeast rolls) IF I eat it very slowly. Eventually, you get to the point where you really don't crave it that much, if at all.

No, I am, damn it! Or at least, that's what just about every single one of the people that have grudges against WASa have said. :heh: They never come up with anything original. 'Course, that might be because a lot of them are the same person, but who knows?

It's the candy-coating stuff they sell in the baking aisle of grocery stores. You can usually find it in a bunch of flavors (I've seen chocolate, white chocolate, butterscotch, etc.)

Yeah, I think every single person that has every agreed with her is supposed to be one of her SNs. Or at least, that's what some people want us to think. :heh:

Eh, it's politics, of course it's staged. She's not my favorite person, but I think she does quite a bit of good. Well, better than most of the other talk show hosts, at least.

My loss has been fairly steady. I wish it was faster, but I'm happy with just losing weight.

I'd like to be you! :clap2: Can I?!

Wow, I wish someone had told me that I could be living in two different states (three, if you count my parents' house in TN) at the same time. I always wanted to live in Arizona. :heh: And if I had known we were the same person, I wouldn't have asked you for your address to send you a Christmas card! You shoulda told me, WASa!

I think I can solve this. Titslereax apparently thinks that you have a double identity and have followed her around to her threads. Of course, she neglects to mention just who that double identity is.

That was a bunch of fun, wasn't it? Took me forever to find that thread though, since I couldn't remember which thread we had the evolution debate in.

The way I look at it, I don't think that there is a ladder. We just exist. I mean, I don't think of us as "more evolved" and other species as "less evolved" or anything like that. All species have evolved in ways that made them best adapted to their special circumstances Well, that's how I look at it, at least.